Fisheries Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gibbons, for eight years I've been raising the alarm of the threats of aquatic invasive species, in particular zebra mussels and quagga mussels, into waters in British Columbia.

When you and the minister were here on October 26, I reiterated the need for the federal government to provide fair allocation of federal resources for AIS prevention in B.C. Last month, four fellow B.C. MPs and I sent a letter to the minister, pressing her to act and ensure fair allocation of resources. Multiple conservation organizations have also written to the minister, pressing on this matter.

Has the minister discussed actions with you for the rebalancing of allocations for aquatic invasive species prevention?

[Annette Gibbons]

We have had discussions recently with the minister on aquatic invasive species. In terms of rebalancing the budget, it was not with that specificity, but we have had discussions with her on what our priorities are.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Why does DFO continue to ignore B.C.'s water and the threats, with only 1.75% of DFO funding for AIS activities across the Canada being allocated to the Pacific region—only 1.75%?

[Annette Gibbons]

I'd be happy to take that number back, Mr. Chair. I have seen numbers.... Now, that's going back some time. I thought the number was higher than that. That's a bit of a surprise, but I am happy to take it back and have a look.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're right on the mark.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for five minutes or less, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

To paraphrase the late Henry Kissinger, I hope I have some questions for your answers today. You'll have to think about that for a second.

Lapsed funding: Does the DFO return money to the treasury at the end of the fiscal year?

[Annette Gibbons]

There are several things that happen.

First of all—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

A brief answer would be fine.

[Annette Gibbons]

For our operating budgets, we are allowed to keep a certain percentage. If we have the money remaining, we keep up to that percentage. For other items, we have to ask for it to be re-profiled, and in many cases those are approved. In some cases, they are not approved.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

On order of magnitude, how much money are we talking about at the end of fiscal year that could be either repurposed or re-profiled, etc.?

[Annette Gibbons]

The operating budget carry-forward is 5%. Then, on grants and contributions, on capital, we have to request specifically from Finance to have a re-profile.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

This is going back to Mr. Small's question. He was talking about a relatively small amount to improve enforcement.

Do you need some changes to get the kind of flexibility, for instance, to take some of this money that would otherwise not be used and reuse it for things that you hear from street level are priorities? Do you need the flexibility there?

[Annette Gibbons]

As I said, we have some flexibility, but money comes with a mandate attached to it. New money comes with a mandate attached to it, of course, and the department has its ongoing budget that we get year over year—our “A-base”, we call it—but there are various things we're required to do under our enabling statutes and so forth.

For different functions, we definitely increase the budgets where we need to. Where there's a critical gap in health and safety, for example, we will look at that, but you know, on the flexibility, we can't not do part of the mandate to put all the money in another part of the mandate—to simplify.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

If you're not able to fulfill certain activities under the mandate just simply because the staff isn't there, things aren't ready, etc., it would seem that a bit of flexibility, then, to repurpose that money to something that does need doing right now would make some sense. This is something that we can obviously take up with the minister.

Has there been a marked shift in the DFO's major priorities over the last, say, five years?

[Annette Gibbons]

Well, certainly we're very focused on fish and fish habitat protection, so we've had a lot of increase in budgets to be able to do more to protect fish and fish habitat. We've had a lot of money come in for the Coast Guard, for example, for the fleet renewals. For a variety of different priorities, there has been a significant increase in funding, for sure.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Where would we be in that regard on stock assessments and enforcement? Has there been a change, positive or otherwise, in funding available for those two activities?

[Annette Gibbons]

Yes. There has been additional money come in for stock assessment, for the science work related to it, for enforcement, for sure.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Maybe, Officer Henderson, you could speak to the multi-purpose Coast Guard vessels that are coming in.

In past hearings, we've heard some questions about whether or not trying to be multi-purpose means for things like stock assessment or other investigations—research the DFO needs—that at the very least these new vessels might cause things to be done differently from before, which then kind of messes up the continuity of the data that's being produced. Do you have any comments on that?

[Chris Henderson]

The purpose of the multi-purpose vessel is to be as flexible as it can possibly be, and it is being designed with science very much in mind. We will be working very closely with our science colleagues to make sure the new ships are able to do the science that needs to be done.

The offshore fishery science vessels that we have now are the mechanism we're using to ensure the continuity of the scientific data on stocks through comparative trawling. That's occurring as we speak. The multi-purpose vessels in the future are going to be supporting the full range of science as articulated by science, but also will have designed into them that flexibility to do anything else that is within the mandate or is required to support other government departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie. You're right on the mark.

We'll go now to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the same vein, we've been talking for a long time about reopening the redfish fishery. In fact, when Minister Murray was in office, this possibility was studied, and then a new minister was appointed. We had a fisheries conference where everybody was represented.

I can tell you that, in Quebec, our fishers are downtrodden. In New Brunswick, fishermen have the right to pick algae, they have the right to catch redfish to a certain extent, as well as many species. There seems to be a bit of a dark cloud hanging over Quebec, because not much ever happens.

In the coming months, what will your priorities be for Quebec in terms of replacement fisheries and financial or other support? What are your priorities for Quebec?

[Annette Gibbons]

I believe the minister intends to make a decision on the redfish fishery in the next few months.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

The next few months?

[Annette Gibbons]

I can't give you an exact date, but it will be soon. It may be in the next few weeks.

As far as Quebec is concerned, it would certainly be affected by the redfish fishery, as would most of the eastern regions. However, in Quebec, people still do a lot of fishing, particularly snow crab and lobster.